As the actress said to the bishop.
In the case of the Green Party, it would seem less correlated to undecided levels recently
True that. But then again, the Green Party is no longer small. To put it different, the bigger a party gets, the more it needs to retain, including by reactivating previous voters.
Small parties can gain simply by causing people to question the way they vote. Draw a circle, see where they land. If one of them lands in your circle, next thing you know, 5%. Kinda thing.
I think there may be one thing we can say about undecideds. They are more likely to found among the supporters of smaller newer parties.
Small parties all rely on swing voters, much more so than N or L, who's voters are more likely to know who they'll vote for further out from the election.
While not the same thing statistically, you have to be undecided before you swing.
Apropos the first segment of gender and ethnicity in journalism, I wonder whether the Radio NZ restructure will bring any more brown voices to the airwaves? Currently, there's Eru Rerekura for 5 minutes twice a day, and another specialist show on Sunday afternoon, and that's about it.
Watching it now. Great work Russell.
15 years for Arch Hill. Smart work, that man Ben. Inspirational.
I still think the problem is more with compulsory KS. What about the people who are already donkey deep in non KS plans, as well they should be?
Can a government credibly force them to contribute a minimum amount to a non KS plan? Or, can a government credibly force them to make additional payments to a new, obligatory KS plan, even if that payment yields less than it would if put into their existing scheme?
I suppose you could phase it in so that such people have a sunset clause on opting in, but then it would take many years before it was even near ready to work as an economic lever.
Couple of other musings, in no particular order.
While mortgage profits go to banks' coffers, so do KS profits.
Carter's scheme (which seems like a good idea) will give banks more KS revenue. So banks aren't necessarily the bad guys (even if they are in other ways). Maybe some more locally owned KS schemes will benefit still more.
Meanwhile, people with KS will enjoy the benefits of forced savings (if not the pain of creating them). But mortgagors (home owners) also enjoy the benefits of their investment.
Carter's scheme extends that benefit to people who can't afford mortgages.
Most of the people who currently opt out of KS probably come in two types: young, poorer people who can't afford it, and richer, older people who are already heavily invested in non KS schemes.
I'm not entirely sure it's any worse for a government to force poor people to save than to force rich people to (although a progressive structure wouldn't be out of the question). But if they already have a mature scheme ex KS? What then?
I think part of it is understanding what people outside the United States care about.
I'd love to know his understanding of what Middle Zealand cares about. Truly.